GIL vs UA

For growth investors, Gildan Activewear Inc.

(GIL) is the stronger pick with 12. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 4% for Under Armour, Inc. (UA). Gildan Activewear Inc. (GIL) offers the better valuation at 22. 4x trailing P/E (13. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Gildan Activewear Inc. (GIL) a "Buy" — based on 29 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On forward P/E, Gildan Activewear Inc.

is actually cheaper at 13. 8x.

Over the past 5 years, Gildan Activewear Inc.

(GIL) delivered a total return of +72. 6%, compared to -69. 3% for Under Armour, Inc. (UA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GIL returned +117. 4% versus UA's -83. 8%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Gildan Activewear Inc.

(GIL) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 22β versus Under Armour, Inc. 's 1. 39β — meaning UA is approximately 13% more volatile than GIL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Under Armour, Inc. (UA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 69% versus 137% for Gildan Activewear Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Gildan Activewear Inc.

(GIL) is pulling ahead at 12. 5% versus -9. 4% for Under Armour, Inc. (UA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Gildan Activewear Inc. grew EPS 7. 7% year-over-year, compared to -190. 4% for Under Armour, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GIL leads at 4. 3% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Gildan Activewear Inc.

(GIL) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 0% net margin versus -3. 9% for Under Armour, Inc. — meaning it keeps 11. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GIL leads at 19. 8% versus -3. 6% for UA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UA leads at 47. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Gildan Activewear Inc.

(GIL) trades at 13. 8x forward P/E versus 53. 7x for Under Armour, Inc. — 39. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UA: 71. 7% to $10. 67.

In this comparison, GIL (1.

5% yield) pays a dividend. UA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Gildan Activewear Inc.

(GIL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 22), 1. 5% yield, +117. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (GIL: +117. 4%, UA: -83. 8%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

GIL pays a dividend while UA does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.